Official Covid Vaccine thread

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

fisky wrote:

Thank you. On this, we can agree.

I think vaccine damage is far more common than has been officially reported. Poster after poster expressed frustration that their doctors thought it was all in their heads or didn't believe them.

I read what Monkeys wrote there too, and even though it was written for you, it’s written for everyone. Harambe is telling you you’re not entitled to your opinion, that your opinion must be terribly informed, and that your opinion is harmful in any event. Nevermind that you, like me, were proactive in your own treatment and research, very likely masked, quarantined, and tested as I did, and not once have you told someone else what to do with their life.

You’re simply trying to help and to call out some of the damage done by this entire experiment. And there has been a lot of damage done. But, remember, the damage gets discarded into the dustbin of anecdotes and merely someone’s friend’s cousin’s brother as though their lives are meaningless. Your children were meaningless. So, yeah, f these people. They are the ones doing the real damage.

Harambe wrote:

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

I read what Monkeys wrote there too, and even though it was written for you, it’s written for everyone. Harambe is telling you you’re not entitled to your opinion, that your opinion must be terribly informed, and that your opinion is harmful in any event. Nevermind that you, like me, were proactive in your own treatment and research, very likely masked, quarantined, and tested as I did, and not once have you told someone else what to do with their life.

You’re simply trying to help and to call out some of the damage done by this entire experiment. And there has been a lot of damage done. But, remember, the damage gets discarded into the dustbin of anecdotes and merely someone’s friend’s cousin’s brother as though their lives are meaningless. Your children were meaningless. So, yeah, f these people. They are the ones doing the real damage.

I'm saying his opinion his based on glaringly obvious cognitive biases, that's all.

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

2600 bro wrote:

He won't even come out and say what he believes either. So hilarious weak and scared to hide behind allusions to common talking points.

So very untrue and disingenuous, but of course you know this. I’ve spent many pages stating my view. You don’t agree. Great. Who cares? What are you going to do when you are no longer relevant? Why do you think people are trolling? Nobody cares about Covid or whether you think someone who wouldn’t take the mRNA vaccines, exclusively, is an idiot.

It irritates you so painfully, palpably so that I do know a thing or two about the subject, that I insisted on agency in the decision and made the best possible decision for me and my very low risk family, and that I’m not suffering some “ill effects” of not getting vaccinated. I am a blight on your existence. But I’m not sorry about that. I’m only sorry that I seem to be able to perpetuate the dialogue, which is actually puzzling when you think about how “smart” the foils are in this battle.

Biden/Omicron 2024.

2600 bro wrote:

fisky wrote:

The many flaws of the clinical trial have been covered. It was a farce. Many adverse events weren't reported. 1 in 8 dropped out after the first dose and were NEVER accounted for. I've brought this up multiple times here and you guys want me to believe that it's normal.

Well, hey, covid was NOT normal times!

We had the biggest pandemic in modern history. People were desperate for a vaccine. Thousands signed up to volunteer. It was well known that you HAD to get two doses, yet 1 in 8 just flat disappeared after the first dose. Why? This makes no sense.

You cannot convince me that with the most important clinical trial in the history of mankind that 1 in 8 would just completely disappear after the first dose when they were told that two doses were needed! These were volunteers! They WANTED to get the vaccine. Yet they completely disappeared to all follow-ups.

Suspiciously, an almost identical number dropped out of the control group... almost down to the exact same number of dropouts. If it had been around a hundred or so one way or the other, it would have been more believable, but the number of dropouts in the vaccine and the control group were almost identical. That's not likely. I think that doctors were just told to drop some of their control subjects to get the numbers to be about even because such an alarming number of subjects dropped out after the first dose of the vaccine. I think a significant number of these subjects dropped out because they had an adverse event and didn't want to take the 2nd dose.

In short, I'm totally, absolutely not buying that the clinical trial was conducted without bias.

The difference in denominator between "vaccinated" (43,548) and "main safety subset" (37,706) is NOT due to drop out. It's due to a registration cutoff imposed to accelerate the EUA. ("Main safety subset (N=37,706) needed to have been enrolled by October 9 2020" - see appendix table S1). The fact that equal numbers of test/placebo were excluded by this cutoff simply implies excellent randomization.

The drop out / exclusion rates are show in paper for both doses, see linked figure below. Roughly 2% per arm.

Your assertion of bias implies coordinated fraud among over a hundred sites in 6 countries? United States, 130 sites; Argentina, 1; Brazil, 2; South Africa, 4; Germany, 6; and Turkey, 9.

Is this correct?

Link:www.nejm.org/cms/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577...

2600 bro wrote:

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

So very untrue and disingenuous, but of course you know this. I’ve spent many pages stating my view. You don’t agree. Great. Who cares? What are you going to do when you are no longer relevant? Why do you think people are trolling? Nobody cares about Covid or whether you think someone who wouldn’t take the mRNA vaccines, exclusively, is an idiot.

It irritates you so painfully, palpably so that I do know a thing or two about the subject, that I insisted on agency in the decision and made the best possible decision for me and my very low risk family, and that I’m not suffering some “ill effects” of not getting vaccinated. I am a blight on your existence. But I’m not sorry about that. I’m only sorry that I seem to be able to perpetuate the dialogue, which is actually puzzling when you think about how “smart” the foils are in this battle.

Biden/Omicron 2024.

Can you remind me your stance on the safety and efficacy on the COVID vaccines? One sentence will do. Evidence (1 piece of non-anecdotal) would help!

Also do you believe 1M Americans died of COVID?

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

2600 bro wrote:

Can you remind me your stance on the safety and efficacy on the COVID vaccines? One sentence will do. Evidence (1 piece of non-anecdotal) would help!

Also do you believe 1M Americans died of COVID?

Is anyone really surprised?

“The risk of contracting COVID-19 was 1.5 times higher for those who received two doses, 1.95 times higher for those who received three doses, and 2.5 times higher for those who received three or more doses, the researchers found. The higher risk was compared to people who received zero or one dose of a vaccine.”

“The exact reason for this finding is not clear. It is possible that this may be related to the fact that vaccine-induced immunity is weaker and less durable than natural immunity. So, although somewhat protective in the short term, vaccination may increase risk of future infection.”

Link:www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.0...

fisky wrote:

Yolos16 wrote:

YOU are calling out someone else’s cognitive bias??? Really? Where have you been this entire thread. Holy sh1t! 🤦‍♂️

Yeah, I think we all are occasionally guilty of logical fallacies. I have to ask myself, "Is this confirmation bias?" a lot.

The logical fallacy I see with... let's use vaccine adverse events, for example... on this forum is circular logic fallacy.

For example, the mRNA clinical trial did not identify XYZ as an adverse event. Thus, when a doctor sees XYZ in a patient who got vaccinated last week, he doesn't report it as a vaccine adverse event. Because it isn't reported as an AE, it doesn't show up in reporting data. Therefore, XYZ isn't an AE because doctors aren't reporting it as an AE because they were told it wasn't an AE. It's circular logic.

But when you ask medical professionals, some will say, "We're seeing a lot of XYZ in our vaccinated patients."

In my previous post, I wrote about the FOLLOW THE MONEY approach. Let's apply it to adverse events.

If it came out that the vaccine caused serious AEs, the financial implications are enormous.

It's not just Pfizer and Fauci; hospitals, universities, the military, and many businesses have mandated that their employees get vaccinated. We're talking trillions of dollars in potential lawsuits. This is why hospitals have discouraged doctors from reporting health problems as AEs.

Yolos16 wrote:

fisky wrote:

Yeah, I think we all are occasionally guilty of logical fallacies. I have to ask myself, "Is this confirmation bias?" a lot.

The logical fallacy I see with... let's use vaccine adverse events, for example... on this forum is circular logic fallacy.

For example, the mRNA clinical trial did not identify XYZ as an adverse event. Thus, when a doctor sees XYZ in a patient who got vaccinated last week, he doesn't report it as a vaccine adverse event. Because it isn't reported as an AE, it doesn't show up in reporting data. Therefore, XYZ isn't an AE because doctors aren't reporting it as an AE because they were told it wasn't an AE. It's circular logic.

But when you ask medical professionals, some will say, "We're seeing a lot of XYZ in our vaccinated patients."

In my previous post, I wrote about the FOLLOW THE MONEY approach. Let's apply it to adverse events.

If it came out that the vaccine caused serious AEs, the financial implications are enormous.

It's not just Pfizer and Fauci; hospitals, universities, the military, and many businesses have mandated that their employees get vaccinated. We're talking trillions of dollars in potential lawsuits. This is why hospitals have discouraged doctors from reporting health problems as AEs.

“You will be haunted by three Vaxtards today….”

fisky wrote:

I just visited the NYT article again this morning. It now has nearly 1,900 comments.

Again, I did an unscientific survey of responses. I found the following.

100 - Comments that did not include any reference to personal vaccine damage

14 - Comments referring to temporary AEs or serious AEs in friends. (I did NOT count these as an AE.)

37 - Comments referring to serious AEs (I defined serious as lasting months, still ongoing, or requiring at least one hospital ER visit)

That's 25% of responses. My previous two counts of earlier posts found 15% and 18% reporting personal AEs after vaccination so that works out to about 20% because this was a larger count than the two previous counts.

Remember, this is not a right wing website. The NY Times has a predominantly liberal, and judging from their comments, overwhelmingly vaccinated readership.

Everyone here, especially Harambe and his alter ego 2600 bro should read the comments on this article. These posters aren't right wing nut jobs. Many posters with AEs made a point to mention that they were pro-vaxx.

Vaccine damage is real. It is not rare. It's not a few hundred people out of 200 million. There are probably 300+ AE stories just in the comments to this one article.

Link:www.nytimes.com/2024/05/03/health/covi...

Here's a link to the comments page.

Link:www.nytimes.com/2024/05/03/health/covi...

DanM wrote:

Monkeys Skyping wrote:

Further, and I've said this before, as someone with expertise in statistical analysis, I've done due diligence in looking at data behind claims put forward by some of the usual suspects (e.g. McCullough, Kirsch, ...) and the most polite conclusion is that their claims greatly exceed their supporting evidence.

Further, and I've said this before, as someone with limited experience in statistical analysis, I've done due diligence in looking at data behind claims put forward by some of the usual suspects (e.g. Fauci, Collins, ...) and the most polite conclusion is that their claims greatly exceed their supporting evidence.

"When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent ... Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, "I can nudge this up a bit," so I went to 80, 85. We need to have some humility here .... We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I'm not going to say 90 percent." Anthony Fauci, December 2020

fisky wrote:

Today, the NY Times has published a second article on vaccine adverse events! It's much more along the official line than the previous article.

Comments on the original article have been closed. Puzzling. You'd think that keeping the comments open would keep bringing people back to the website.

I wonder if comments like this one... it wasn't the only one with a similar theme... caused them to shut it down.

As someone who has always been firmly on the political left, I have been utterly appalled by my "side's" dismissiveness and outright cancelation of those who questioned the vaccines, the vaccine mandates, or, in the case of this article, vaccine injury. Many of been mocked or even worse--completely ignored.
Many of us have fled to the RFK Jr. camp and will never look back and have abandoned the Democrats entirely. All this is due to the mean-spirited, myopic, and politicized Covid response, led by bought and paid for Big Pharma shills like Anthony Fauci and the CDC as a whole. The mainstream liberal-left has still much to answer for for what it did during Covid.